Does the Good Side Always Win?

Does the Good Side Always Win?

If you went to a church school as I did, then you will have been brought up with the notion that ‘good will always overcome evil’ and to most that will mean the goodies will always win over the baddies. Perhaps it was a way to encourage children to be good, but I’m sure there are many passages in the Bible that send the same message, however it depends on what you deem the ‘good side’ is.

I want to believe good will always win, and deep down I do, but actual experience tells me that it doesn’t. Not here on the physical realm anyhow. You are then left wondering what’s the point in doing the right thing if the bad side wins? It’s not much consolation being told that in the Spiritual Realm it counts and you will reap rewards at some point when you are suffering and perhaps even made to look a fool for having faith (for some it means being financially ruined, or a loss of reputation). I can now see why it can deter people from choosing to be good and to do the right thing when they see others being rewarded who clearly aren’t on the good side. I also can see why people are atheists or deem religions with skepticism.

Perhaps it’s a test to see who succumbs to temptation or the easy way? Even if it is,there is only so much a Soul can endure before their faith and belief in the good can waver. The good side doesn’t always win here on the physical realm, but on the Spiritual Realm it always wins, but can you trust in something that isn’t tangible? This is why an incarnation can seem like an endurance test; to see how many times we do give in, or turn a blind eye. Life is like a game at times and you must hold fast for you don’t know when the game will end or what the prize will be. However, don’t get too disappointed if you end up on the losing side here on the physical plane, and don’t let it stop you from being ‘good’ and choosing the right thing to do. That’s the problem with humanity now, people are easily slipping in their morals and so the ‘good side’ doesn’t always win because they justify their gray borderline acts.

The phrase ought to be ‘Good should always overcome the bad, but it doesn’t always win’ because it’s more realistic. I find that indoctrinating people from a young age in believing that good will always win is counter productive, and can lead to disappointment and a loss of faith, for the good doesn’t always win depending on whose eyes you are looking through. We know this because bad people do get away with crime, liars and frauds get away with their schemes, so good doesn’t always win on the physical realm. It’s a huge misconception, and although I can see the logic, logic and human morality don’t go hand in hand.

 

Then we must ask what is winning? Is it the side that most people believe or agree with, but does it matter what the masses think for they could be wrong too? Is it important to win, and how did the desire to win come about? The greatest lessons are learned not with the outcome but with the journey to get there. I get slightly deflated when I see people basking in adulation and glory when someone better should have won. Winning doesn’t always matter for it’s about who  performed well at the given time and is transient. Too much emphasis is given to winning and losing, and let’s face it, no one wants to lose, but people expect the winners to be the best and to be good. However, they aren’t always especially if we look at politics (such as the recent USA and Philippines elections), and winners of awards aren’t always good or nice people either. We expect them to be, but the reality is that a winner doesn’t define goodness.

Everyone has the choice to be good or bad, and even if the good doesn’t always win, we should strive to be good and not let the need to win compromise our morals or choices. It’s not always easy, but it’s possible!

Save

Advertisements

The Pitfalls Of Taking Responsibility

The Pitfalls Of Taking Responsibility

As the first born, I was responsible from an early age for my sibling and he needed it. The amount of times I have pulled him back from running into a road, helped break a fall from a swing, or held his hand while he balanced on a wall, and those were just things when we were toddlers. In society today, taking responsibility and take credit for an achievement are two different parallels. People don’t mind being responsible (and getting credited) for positive things, such as being part of a team for winning an award, but when they are associated with scandals such as the Harvey Weinstein cases, no one wishes to accept or take responsibility. It can naturally damage reputations, but denying something that you knew, well is that honest just because you don’t want others to judge you poorly? Is it to save yourself and claim ignorance when really you didn’t want to get involved, turned a blind eye, or convinced yourself it was none of your business?

Not everyone can be a leader, and even people in positions of power can handle responsibility poorly, or pass the buck whenever they can. People care about an unblemished reputation, but with responsibility comes the pros and cons and that means shouldering the blame when things go wrong under your watch. Take for instance, parents are responsible for their children, yet we know many do neglect them, so while they have that duty of care, many don’t know how to use it or actually want it either. Where a company or political party fails, then the leader resigns (because they failed those under them) usually before they get pushed. Some try to cling to power, and use excuses (British Airways Chairman Cruz comes to mind when a computer glitch due to cheaper outsourcing led to delays and cancellations of flights) to account for what transpired. Accepting responsibility and then resolving and dealing with the issue is what a good leader does, rather than make excuses.

There is also a moral responsibility to others, and the question is where do you draw the line? In what circumstances can you say it’s none of your business and not have an uneasy conscience? I battle this out with my friends often, because as humans we do have a moral responsibility to others, but it also bound by an unspoken law of privacy. When is it right to intervene or say something when you suspect something is wrong, or are you interfering? Do you sit idly by and chant, “It’s not my business,” and hope there is no fall out?

Currently I am living this dilemma is several situations. I have a neighbor with multiple sclerosis, and that means her brain cells are dying at a much faster rate and thus she doesn’t have full capacity. She can’t remember names, or some days whether she has eaten. I help as a neighbor, but where do I draw the line as she’s not my responsibility, yet I know if don’t check on her she may not have eaten all day or forgotten to take her medication?

A while back I hadn’t been to see her for a few days and all she had eaten were cereal bars, because she forgot to eat. She only has cousins but they aren’t as close as they used to be, and as she is old, most of her friends have passed away. I know I’m not responsible for her, but I do feel a moral responsibility to make sure she has eaten each day, because I’m sitting a few doors away and a small act can make a difference. On the other hand her friends feel I am interfering, especially when I tell her it’s not wise to go out in the dark in winter for no reason other than it gets her out of the house when she’s had several falls in the house. That’s just common sense, which sadly she no longer is capable of all of the time. Her friends do have a responsibility to ensure she is safe, yet the few she has don’t exercise it and it leads to her getting ill.

We all have some kind of responsibility whether we like it or not. Many shun the thought of it, because it means you must be accountable, and while I’m not fond of hierarchies, the fact is they are necessary to help balance and keep order. I was recently attacked as being arrogant and for acting out of place by someone because I took responsibility and acted. Some may ask why I acted, and there is always a reason but do I need justification to act when a position of authority is being abused? I naturally expected some criticism, but actually it only came from one person who voiced their opinion (no one agreed with them), while there may be others who thought the same but opted to remain silent.

Often in life we hope someone else will take responsibility, or that whatever needs resolving will naturally occur. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case and when you are in a position of responsibility you must make choices and take actions that you know others won’t necessarily like or understand, and that will lead to criticisms and bitter hatred. I have fired staff before, but only after they are given a chance to redeem themselves. Bosses in stores that struggle to make profits have to cut staff numbers and close stores; it’s never popular but these are the decisions those in responsibility must make to ensure a company survives. Politicians have to balance making decisions for the good of the people, while also doing what is best for the country. These don’t always go hand in hand, if you take Brexit in the UK as an example. The choices the government makes are on behalf of the people, and some may not be so popular for sectors of society whom will be affected, but regardless these decisions must be made, and the country (like a company) comes before the people.

Leaders or those in charge will always face popularity issues; if they do and say things the masses like all is good, however, once the don’t, that tide will change. Even though I don’t need to justify my actions, I feel the need to explain myself nonetheless for those with little understanding of the spiritual world. We all have Guides whether we know it or not in life, and while some acknowledge them others don’t have a clue. There are Guides in training, and who are mentored by more experienced Guides. Therefore if a Guide is abusing their powers and harming others in favor of their charge, then those mentoring the Guide should intervene. So what happens if that doesn’t work? Then the Elders will take charge and intervene, and only do so when there is no other option. That is their role to allow Guides to learn and be mentored, but when harms become consistent and are deliberate then Elders have the power and the right to use whatever means to prevent harms. This is what occurred, and it’s as simple as that; I was protecting and defending the innocent from being harmed from an abuse of power.

To try and put it in physical realm terms consider the scenario; a manager is caught fiddling his expenses and is found out, and because of it his whole team suffers and doesn’t get a bonus that month. He is reprimanded by his director not to do this again, however, when the director is on vacation he continues to fiddle his expenses and HR then get involved and give him a written warning and suspends his ability to have an expense account. This doesn’t deter him and is found to have submitted fake receipts, so the chairman of the company takes action and demotes him as neither the director or HR (in the hierarchy chain) have been effective, and not only did his team suffer as a consequence of his actions, the company had lost money through fraudulent expense claims.

Responsibility is never easy, and isn’t something everyone wants. Those in power or a position of power must accept that they won’t always be friends with everyone under their charge, and that they must make unpopular decisions for the greater good. Just because someone challenges or criticizes their actions doesn’t mean they were wrong, but that many people don’t fully understand when someone has to take responsibility and act it is for a reason that may not be obvious, nor is it their business to question why an action was taken if it doesn’t personally affect them.

We all have a moral responsibility to help others in need and that will never change, because saying in hindsight, “I wished I had done something,” is too late. Finding that perfect balance to do the right thing, and not to cross the line of interfering or invading privacy is a constant lesson that will never end, or knowing when things have gone too far and action is necessary.

Save

If You Have Nothing Nice To Say, Say Nothing At All ~ Right or Wrong?

Many of us have grown up with the above saying, “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all,” but is this applicable all of the time? One doesn’t wish to be a hypocrite, but when there is silence when a question is asked, then that silence speaks louder than words.

We all come across occasions when we have said the wrong thing, have over stepped the mark, offended without intent, or were unaware of the circumstances when saying something, but that is human. Some may judge you as tactless or consider it bad manners, which is why silence or knowing when to be silent can either be considered safe or perhaps others mistake is as quiet enabling.

Should we be afraid to ask questions if they are reasonable and why are we afraid of the truth and honesty? If so, then where is the art of real conversation going? Then we may ask, what is considered reasonable? Recently, a friend said someone called Anna was staying on their sofa. A reasonable question is to ask who that is, isn’t it? I was met with silence as eventually it was revealed she is a grandchild that was being fostered, and whom my friend didn’t want to discuss. They felt embarrassed because they were afraid I would judge them and I felt bad because I wondered if I had over stepped the boundaries. We did however clear the air, because they knew I didn’t know who Anna was, and I replied I could just pretend I knew or that I didn’t want to know. Which option is better, and what is the point of it?

I had another incident where I was visiting a friend, and her partner invited his best friend and wife along. A reasonable question to ask if how did the couple meet—it’s simple harmless conversation after all. My friend then reprimanded me and said it was wrong of me to ask because they were having marriage difficulties. To be honest, I don’t think I was in the wrong; if one is at a dinner party and is introduced as a couple it’s a very normal safe question to ask. If they were having marriage problems, they should be alone sorting them out and not expecting others in public to tip toe around their issues.

In other cases, should you remain quiet when things are facts? Facts cannot be disputed and are not opinion based, and the truth is some facts aren’t very nice. Should you remain quiet and only discuss nice and good facts, and ignore the bad ones or pretend they don’t exist? When someone asks you what you think about someone, should you lie, or remain quiet if you don’t like them? By remaining quiet or giving a neutral answer such as, “They seem okay,” you are being polite, but not truthful and people know. By sparing their feelings, you are also losing a bit of integrity and step closer to that of being a hypocrite, afraid of the truth.

The current generation doesn’t appear to adhere to this rule of remaining quiet, and often express their views without any regard for the consequences as they feel they have a right to speak their minds. We do theoretically, but should also consider whether it’s an opinion or fact. Opinions and perceptions will always change and vary according to the person, but facts will remain the same, and you can try and distort them, but essentially all you are doing is denying a truth that you prefer not to know.

A good person shouldn’t intentionally say things to harm another, but if telling the truth (no matter how nasty) could help, surely that is better than remaining quiet? An example is if you know someone is being unfaithful, should you say something when asked or not? The problem I see in society today is that people fear the truth and would rather not know things. However, there are tactless people who say things that can offend and harm others and because no one has told them this, they continue. That’s why sometimes it’s good to tell someone so they know what the boundaries are.

I do try to always find something nice or neutral to say, but I’m from the School of Honesty is the Best Policy. It’s a case of how it’s delivered rather than the content though, so I don’t offend most of the time when I tell the truth. The fact is that we can’t always be nice, but should strive to be and because so many people do try and stay silent or give non-answers when they don’t wish to offend, it already tells the other party that they wanted to say something that wasn’t so nice. Therefore, do we humans play a game of pretending and choosing what sounds better versus the truth?

The truth is that honesty isn’t always pleasant, but is that better than a half-baked fib so as not to upset someone? The answer in polite society is to opt for the safe half-baked lie. However, an underlying consequence is that people are then deluded and continue with behaviors that could be questionable. The question is, is that right, to enable these behaviors? While I always advocate honesty wherever possible, it’s only pertinent when that person can accept it or is willing to.

When it comes to discussing those in the public eye, we can ascertain from the facts (from their past behaviors and choices) what we choose to perceive. The fact is they have chosen to be in the public eye through being a celebrity or a politician and therefore should expect to be scrutinized, and accept that not all things said about them will be nice. That doesn’t mean they should be targeted, but if someone is part of a cult and they publicly say and do things that offend others, then people have a right to say what they think about them. Another example is when people are called gold diggers, and their history shows a pattern alluding to that, perhaps they are, but there is no law against it. Certain things can’t be proven, but can be deduced easily, so should people remain silent in this case too? People can state probable and likely facts, even if they aren’t so nice if they have an element of truth.

Basically, if you choose to say nothing at all to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, just because you haven’t said what you think doesn’t alter the fact that you had a negative thought. They probably know it, and if they persist and ask if you are being honest, then what do you do? The dilemma is then to lie to pacify, and so silence isn’t always the easy option if you don’t deliver it convincingly. That’s why I advocate tactful honesty based on facts, and in the worse case, to offer no opinion through ignorance. Realistically, people must learn from hearing a few dark truths, because the world and humanity aren’t perfect, but we should find a balance between honesty and avoiding hurting others feelings whenever possible, but not to tip toe around the truth all of the time.

Do We Enable A Superficial Existence?

For some of us, we may question the point of existence, yet there are different layers—an extrinsic (spiritual) layer, and an intrinsic (materialistic) layer. So while some deep thinkers may come up with theories as to why humans exist, why pain, happiness, and other emotive responses occur, the vast majority will only focus on the intrinsic layer—what they can see, feel, understand, relate to and can touch. This is however superficial and is created my humans, but do we all enable it and therefore are responsible for how it has evolved?

Consider the goals one has in life on a superficial level that society has created and framed:

  • Get a good education
  • Have your own home
  • Marry an attractive partner and have children
  • Find a well paid job

Who says we must have these to exist? The irony is that people subconsciously believe they must do these and that is what existence is about. Yet if you look at someone who lives in a remote village in Asia, with no contact with the western world, few of these goals will apply, but they are still humans that exist on this planet.

If we move on, other superficial goals that society has created and enabled are the following:

  • Go on holiday several times a year
  • Buy a flat screen television
  • Wear designer clothes
  • Get the latest smartphone or laptop
  • Own your own company
  • Dine out at least once a week

Have these been created to advance humanity, or are they superficially meant to classify people from those who have succeeded and those who have not in the eyes of society? You only have to look at lifestyle surveys to see what marketing companies are deeming successful, and if you don’t fit into their niche they reject you. The question is; are you a failure if you don’t go abroad or on holiday, if you don’t eat in a restaurant once a week, or if you don’t own a smartphone? The answer is a realistic ‘no’ yet in the eyes of many who are brainwashed into superficiality they would deem that to be the case. So, are we as a society enabling this superficial existence based on material goods, appearance, and status by subconsciously conforming to the goals the media promotes and that society aspire to and accept as goals for success?

Look at tabloid types of magazines, websites, and shows where people focus on appearances, and what kind of lives alleged beautiful and successful people are living in a bid to promote aspirations. Is that a realistic or practical type of existence? Is that what life is about? It’s worrying that an emerging generation look to celebrity gossip as inspiration, and websites that promote egos, status, and shaming as the norm. Magazines thrive on trivial gossip, boosting those without merit and embarrassing those in the public eye when they make an error. Again, think about it and consider is that what existence is about and if so, why do you strive to be like that?

Let us look at the extrinsic layer of existence, which is intangible, and unproven but does make logical sense. People can’t always relate to these theories, and many prefer not to, simply because they can’t see the endgame as in ‘what’s in it’ for them.

  • We exist to learn from our mistakes and be a better person/soul.
  • By existing we are helping others learn their lessons, through support and advice.
  • Existence has a purpose to help mankind and society to evolve.

Many may struggle with the above and wonder how and what do they need to learn, how can they help others (and should they), and why does mankind need to evolve? Now, I’m not talking about human rights or charity work here, because these are remedies for man made problems. Yes, there maybe starvation in some countries, but look at the corrupt governance there and why it exists, then there are cultural differences in laws that may need to evolve, but one must still respect the choice of different laws and cultures in society.

The extrinsic layer will rarely bring about immediate results, and that can deter people because human nature likes to see progress as it motivates them. Also some will want to see the rewards, or want to know how they are doing. Unlike a scale of wealth you cannot measure how you have progressed in terms of learning from your mistakes, as there is no limit. Some may ask, “How can anything I do help mankind evolve?” and the simple answer is that we all do without actively thinking about it.

In what ways to we enable a superficial existence? We do it by placing importance on transient and trivial matters—why is it important to hail a previously unknown celebrity spouse as a fashion icon because designers give them free clothes knowing they will be photographed, do we care who a Prince or Princess is dating, and why would what the public (a handful of people in a poll) think have any credence or relevance? Why are we made to feel or look inadequate if we don’t have a social media account or know how to use one? Why do we judge others on where they live or where they went to school? Materialism is superficial and people become materialistic without realizing it because others validate it and make it seem normal, hence these attitudes and behaviors enable a superficial existence.

People aim to go to a college that will make them look good in society, to use the latest smartphone in public so others will think more highly of them, or they emulate celebrities in what they wear and use in a bid to feel superior to others. Does any of the above actually matter extrinsically? No, because people are conforming to what others have created as the purpose of living and existing. You have to ask yourself what is that all for? Who gains pleasure from any of it and did you enjoy it? One may enjoy watching a film on a large flat screen television, but that lasts a couple of hours, and they may proudly brag about their possession. However, it can breakdown, and eventually it will become outdated. It’s transient. What about wearing designer clothes, or the same outfit as a celebrity in a bid to feel good? You wear it for a day or on several occasions, but you have to take it off to go to sleep, to wash it, and it can get torn or stained. Again, it is transient.

I recently stopped reading many magazines because rather than read articles that explore issues I have found the recent generation of writers (sorry millennials) who boast, brag, and who praise their peers for pretty much anything. There is no real substance in most of the media, yet it has the power to brainwash the weak-minded and impressionable into thinking that is the point of existing—to earn enough to go on holiday, to pay a deposit on a flash new car, to buy shoes that a film star wore, or even to follow a cause because someone said it was a good idea. It’s not only the media that enable this, but those who choose to take note and blindly conform.

Are any media outlets promoting extrinsic concepts of existence? Usually they are seen as the loony websites, cults, or religious crazies, but you don’t need to read or listen to any of them. Simply ask yourself when you are at the end of your life, what was the point of your existence? What did you learn, what made you happy, sad, and when you had to make difficult choices how did you do that? That is the real purpose of existence, not to have children, a mansion, a highflying job, and to look immaculate. These elements may have helped you find out things about yourself (strengths and weaknesses) and others, such as children may teach you how to love, or be responsible, a house may teach you what is it to feel secure and safe, and a job can teach you about interacting with others (good and bad). They also teach you that they are fleeting, and come and go and there is no continuity.

Instead of waiting until your golden years ask yourself the important questions of what your aims are for your existence. What do you wish to achieve for yourself and no one else. The truth is no one will really care if you went to Harvard or if you did an online degree (there is still snob value where Harvard Extension is considered low class even though it’s the same courses taught on campus), no one will care that you lived on the most expensive street in town, because none of those things have defined you as an individual.

We do have the ability to think for ourselves and that seems to have been forgotten. Don’t get me wrong, I like nice clothes, but I choose colors, fabrics, and styles I like and that suit me, and I also opt for practical technology that I am comfortable with and can use. I like to travel, and go to places that inspire me or that I wish to visit to explore rather than others who like to boast where they have been to look glamorous. I’ve been there and in a circle that behaved as such, and it really is a façade most of the time, and then some believed in it and tried to be something that they weren’t because they thought that is who they could become. The problem is they weren’t do it for themselves, but for others acceptance and validation.

So why do we exist? It’s not to upgrade to a new smartphone every couple of years, to go on holiday each year, or to buy a new wardrobe each season. If that is your existence (and that’s what some people aim and for live for), then maybe you need to think about why you feel the need for any of the above? The fact is you can exist without them, but what can’t you exist without? Humanity; morals to know what is right or wrong (and to act accordingly), humility, the ability to forgive, love, and most importantly know who you are and that it doesn’t matter what others think. It’s nice to be liked and loved, but that doesn’t make you a good or enlightened soul, because you, whether you want to believe it or not chose to exist, and you do know the reason or reasons, you just need to discover them in your own time.

The True Cost Of Integrity

Principles matter to me and always have done, but exerting them and standing by them has come at a cost. Others may call it stubbornness or choosing my battles poorly, but if you can’t sleep at night then what good is that? I used to think integrity and morals were natural traits that all humans learn, but as I am now in my fourth decade I realize that while humans have that capacity, it’s a choice that many don’t opt for.

Once upon a time I also believed that having morals didn’t cost anything, it shouldn’t and I’m not talking financially (although that does come into it), but at a personal cost. Having integrity and morals can cost you in many ways; friendships and relationships, financially, and most importantly your self-esteem and worth. Why the latter you may ask? It’s because it gets questioned and judged by others, and no matter how resolute you are in what you believe is right, it’s hard to ignore others perceptions and how they react. It shouldn’t matter, but unless you are a hermit then human interactions will be important and necessary at some point.

As a child I would stand by my principles and beliefs, and it was hard because as a minor you have limited rights. The legal rights and moral rights are blurred between whether you are able to make an educated choice, or when the law deems that you are old enough. The ironic thing is one cannot ascertain capacity by age alone—there are many 50 year olds who legally can make choices, but in reality lack the education or ability to make moral or sensible ones. However, society has to create some kind of boundaries with age limits to protect some and also to enable others to have choices.

The emotional cost of exercising your morals and standing by your integrity can be boundless. I say that because often others will not understand why you choose the long and less obvious path, and may try and make you feel guilty, call you a traitor, and some may even physically attack you if not verbally or bombard you with emails and texts filled with hate and anger. There maybe false accusations too, in an attempt to elicit an apology to convince you to change your mind. While it is prudent to choose your battles wisely, you must also look at the potential outcomes not only for those concerned but also for yourself. Ultimately you must live with the choices made, and also your honest reasons for doing so. That includes giving advice or support only when asked, however, when one supports it’s not merely a case of telling someone what they wish to hear for that would be a disservice, but finding a way to help tactfully. If they are wrong and clearly making a poor decision then why would you encourage and support that? By enabling it you aren’t assisting but are choosing an easy way, thus diminishing your integrity on your moral compass.

Ignorance is not always bliss because guilt has a habit of reminding you of what you could have/should have done or said at the time. I’ve come to terms with most of my guilt for I too took the advice and at several points in my life chose to look the other way. It wasn’t really my business, and I had too much going on—well, that’s what I said to myself at the time. By the time I hit my mid-thirties you realize that you do have choices, and taking sides may be profitable financially and less stressful initially, but those sleepless nights can haunt you indefinitely.

There have been several times I have been falsely accused and I stood my ground to prove my innocence, and what I have found is justice is slow, painful and costly in financial terms as well as the mental toil that comes with it. I believe in justice because if people didn’t stand up for what is right, then it enables others to get away with misdeeds. However, I understand why people choose to settle or back down and I don’t judge them harshly. They may feel the mental pressure is too much, or that the outcome could harm others, and financially it could lead to poverty. In my case, I received no real apology, financially it cost me, mentally it wore me down, I lost friendships (people who had believed the other party eventually stopped threatening me, but only one said sorry), and my reputation had been tarnished. Would I do it again? Probably, because I know justice was done and it was a necessary action to take, and the justice system found in my favor.

How do you deal with situations where people are in denial and don’t wish to hear the truth? Do you listen and just nod or do you help them face the truth? The former is easier, but what if something happened and you know you could have stopped it or said something to prevent tragedy? Would you feel guilty and that you had some blame? The latter is a little more complex than merely telling the truth because it is usually met with hostility and anger.

I’ve had more than my fair share of people questioning my loyalty when in fact often people don’t wish to listen or actually want advice, but need someone to vent at as a punch bag for their errors or poor choices. I’m faced with either keeping quiet because whatever I say will get twisted and thrown back at me, and if I do remain quiet I am then questioned as to why I am not being a supportive friend. Either way I have discovered there is no easy or peaceful way to ‘support’ someone, so I am left with with determining my actions by my integrity. That means to tactfully convey the truth and to offer advice and support honestly. Usually that means finding a way to tell someone that they may have been to blame, or that if they are making excuses (such as I have no time, or I have no money, or I don’t know where to go) not to resolve something that it is indeed an excuse and not a reason. Generally people don’t like to hear the truth when they are reluctant to face things, but that is not your lesson. Your lesson is to know when to stand by your morals and integrity even if the consequences aren’t that pleasant. Telling someone it’s fine to invoice for something that didn’t exist because no one will check, is that moral? While they will make the final choice, advocating it as acceptable behavior isn’t. It’s called fraud, and while many people sweep these small acts daily under the radar it doesn’t take away the fact of what it is.

Having integrity and morals can be a costly exercise and a lonely one at times. It doesn’t guarantee sleep at night either (one would think it would), but deep down you know you did the right thing even if no one else acknowledges or appreciates it, although you may question your actions when no one else approves. I’ve been verbally abused so many times, and yet those who did the abuse hurling remain stuck in their pit of denial and pool of pity of woe is me. What I have learned is some people don’t wish to learn even if I tell them this is a lesson for them to learn from. They simply don’t want it and exclaim it’s too hard and don’t want to take any responsibility. We all have an element of responsibility in life to one another as humans. That doesn’t mean we should forsake our own integrity to make others feel better about themselves when they are either lying or opting not to help themselves. There is a fine line between interference and guidance for each of us have choices, and guidance is merely proffering alternate options that may not have been considered.

I can sleep at night, not that well as I have insomnia and an overactive mind that has so many ideas and thoughts passing through constantly, but on a moral level I know that my integrity is intact. Yes, like many I have regrets and some tiny fragments of guilt from my greener days, but I have learned from them and learned to live with them. We all create different boundaries for our morals and levels of integrity, and that is priceless. I can say it’s worth the verbal abuse, and spates of loneliness, which may sound strange, but I can look in the mirror and know that I am honest and I am at peace within myself because no one owns me or can buy my integrity.

The Flawed State Of Democracy

I watch the world, as each day there are more protests, yet many of these are peaceful with rational and logical requests. If democracy truly existed, then surely there would be no need for protests because the will of the masses will have been heard? Power and control rule humanity, so what part does democracy play? What is democracy these days, and is a republic truly representative as how it was intended back in ancient times? Blood has been spilled and countless lives have been sacrificed in the name of democracy, so why is it so important and has society become complacent in accepting limited democracy, or are others expecting more than they should? The will of the people may seem right, but do the masses know what is right, can they be trusted, and what if they aren’t and the minority are right? Look at the Salem Witch Trials; a classic case of where the minority were right and governance failed the minority.

First of all what is defined by democracy or a republic? A republic is where people are represented via elected representatives, who in turn nominate a President to oversee the republic. This is a type of indirect democracy called a representative democracy, but how many of them are drowning in red tape, bribery, corruption, and rules that favor the government in the name of the people? States can refer to themselves as a democratic republic but are they truly democratic, or is that what they wish others to believe? The idea is that citizens govern for the collective public good, but there will always be a minority and majority of what is considered good.

Democracy is much harder to define, but one assumes democracy as a right to freedom of speech, such civil and human rights these days. They confer power through people power—numbers to urge governments for reforms. In short they have the right to have a voice. In ancient times where direct democracy took place (Athens) citizens had the opportunity to raise concerns, but to be recognized as a citizen was similar to the terms that voters had to fulfill early on in the western voting process. Not everyone had a say or was entitled to vote. As time has progressed, more people are able to vote compared to the excluded, which included women, foreigners, non-landowners, slaves, and those who had not reached the age of majority. It does appear the current generation takes the right to vote for granted, or that equal rights or citizenship is natural. Of course they should be, but history tells us that these freedoms are a result of centuries of campaigning by those who were denied such rights. This is why history is important so that people realize that the rights they have are a result of sacrifices and bloodshed.

A republic usually has a charter or constitution, which theoretically protects the people from a possible corrupt government, whereas an absolute democracy would allow a majority to vote against a minority. Here, the will of the people would be carried with no legal framework. Both types are susceptible to manipulation, but more so the latter which is why a direct democracy wouldn’t work in many of societies today, perhaps only small groups where the outcome can be decided by the majority. Theoretically a republic protects the minority and limits the powers of the majority.

In France the Fifth Republic governs with a Parliament, but also has a President elected as a head of state, who then appoints a Prime Minister who oversees Parliament. During the recent French elections it is poignant to note not who won, but the balance of the blank votes and abstentions. It is a message that the people do not feel the democratic process is working, and by casting a white/blank vote as 4 million people did, they were actually voting to express how undemocratic the system was. The electorate had a poor choice of candidates, and many chose not to vote or to make a protest vote. The safe choice was an idealist candidate (Macron) from the previous government who was inexperienced, or the far right candidate (Le Pen) that had been associated with racism, but who vowed to look after the interests of the people.

From the 42 million votes let’s see how democratic the result was, and was it the will of the people according to the INSEE and Ministry of France? A third (34.87) of the voting electorate  did not like either candidate, and did not feel that either candidate represented their interests. Roughly 20.75 million voted for Macron, 10.64 million for Le Pen, and 12 million abstained. It is worthy to note from that 12 million, 4 million made the effort to get up and go to a polling station to cast a blank vote in protest. That does mean than more than half the electorate did not vote for Macron or want him as their head of state. Therefore, it is not the majority of the citizens, but the majority of those who made valid votes that matter. Sadly blank votes don’t get counted, but are recorded to increase the turn out percentages.

In the recent US elections it was similar where 231,556,622 people were eligible to vote, but 92,671,979 (40 percent) didn’t. Only 138,884,643 (60 percent) voted and one can consider those who voted for a third party or a non-existent candidate were making a protest vote. Clinton got 65,853,516 votes, and Trump 62,984,825. Therefore, due to the mechanics of the Electoral College where some states no longer adhere to the original concept of its inception, a majority vote did not win. You then wonder how democratic is the system, because republican democracy is designed to protect the minority from those who try to manipulate the system. The Electoral College was designed to protect the minority when it was created, yet one wonders how democratic it is today considering the original concept has been altered, and states have different electoral college rules in regards to what are deemed faithless electors. In my opinion, electors should not be bound to vote for any candidate other than the one they feel is in the best interests of the people. That was after all the concept of the Electoral College in a bid to prevent bribery and corruption over votes.

So what does the future hold for democracy? Do the people have a right to decide who should govern and represent them, and how do they ensure there is no corruption? That is why the judicial system must remain impartial to ensure that democracy is balanced between the wishes of the people, and what is legally moral and correct. What happens if there is a corrupt government? There are measures to remove them, but what if they fail? That would mean the end of democracy where the will of the people is halted, silenced, and is controlled. I fear that the judiciary in some countries has lost their way among all the precedents and statutes, and while their job is to interpret and uphold the law, they must also do so by taking into consideration the shift in societal expectations and values.

Democracy isn’t necessarily about the will of the masses, but what a media outlet wishes to promote. Are owners persuaded to promote things to influence the public, who in turn donate vast sums to certain parties in governance? Yes, there are rules about such donations, but there are also loopholes. Some may call them incentives, but others may say it’s legal bribery. This has always existed and probably will continue in some fashion. Those who seek power will find a way, even if the masses oppose. That isn’t actual democracy, but it’s still called that because it is a diluted version of what society accepts, yet the masses feel helpless, and many comment that they don’t vote because it won’t make a difference. It can and does, however, realistically not all of the time. People need to value democracy, and use it because if they stop, then that allows the dictators to take control, and trying to regain a democratic voice again will be hard. It would be a regression of the advances made in society that campaigners and protesters have fought for with their lives.

If the will of the masses is not a democratic majority, then that system needs to be reevaluated. What if the government fails in listening or to represent the people adequately? Well, riots and protests ensue, and that is democracy—when the masses declare that they are not being heard. Is human nature compatible with true democracy? I find it hard to reconcile because there will always be factions, and the masses aren’t always right, nor are governments. So how can a perfect society exist when the very nature of democracy and its perceptions are flawed and idealistic?

What Defines ‘You’?

The recent election results in the USA has made me think about what really defines us—how others perceive us, what and how our beliefs are shaped, and what influences us and how that impacts us and shapes our development. There are multiple factors that once combined contribute to who we become, but does that define you, and what your morals, standards, and beliefs are?

First of all, our direct environment can affect our beliefs, and morals, which is why the first few years of life are important as it creates a foundation for what we believe in. However, things can change so nothing is set in stone. Our parents, siblings, teachers, peers, and the people such as neighbors can provide an initial foundation for what we become and what we build upon. But what about those who come from a background where there was instability, does that mean it will affect a child and their development? It could go either way; perhaps that is what they know and expect in life, or they will see it and know that is not the direction they wish to follow.

What you choose to do for a living, where you decide to live, your choice of friends, political beliefs, religion, lifestyle choices, even what newspaper you opt to read, all contribute to what external perceptions people will have of you. Of course it is wrong to stereotype, but often psychologists find patterns that fit into categories, and people will do this subconsciously, wondering whether they want to get to know you better or not.

I have met many people who have overcome a background that was less than ideal, or they appear to have done so. Take for example Hollywood actors who came from humble backgrounds; on the surface they may have changed and evolved, but perhaps underneath it all, it was that lifestyle that pushed them to escape, or that part of them is still grounded in those early beliefs?

We aren’t always a product of our environment, but some people are. You simply can’t generalize because we all have choices, and some seek out other paths, while others are content to follow the path ahead rather than to source an alternative one. I come back to the Trump voter, which I think many psychologists would like to study and try to understand their beliefs, morals, and levels of humanity. Indeed, I feel it would be a useful study, however, many people will not admit openly to voting for Trump, or those that do have no answer when questions of discrimination or racism are raised. Instead of answering the question, people divert the answer towards Clinton, and say Trump wasn’t as crooked as her. Therefore, they silently admit (for they can’t deny) by evading the question that Trump has made racist statements, thus by supporting Trump, they also support racism. That’s what I can’t get my head around. Two friends (both from ethnic backgrounds) said they supported Trump over Clinton, and both are women. It confounds me, having being a victim of racism that people could support someone who has publicly been racist.

While politics is  a grey area, it can still define the core basis of your beliefs, just as your religion can. Often it’s easier to say you don’t follow any particular party or religion to avoid people judging you, because they will even if they never say anything. It’s the same when you are a child, where your parents don’t want you to be friends with those from bad families. Outward perceptions and judgments are made all of the time, but do they matter? People are more comfortable around those with shared beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they can be trusted automatically. That’s a red herring, which is why people do create public personas and images so that they can attract the desired friends and networks. What groups you join, and who you follow on social media defines the kind of person you are to the outside world, because you are making a statement to say, ‘This is what I agree with and like,’ so be careful who you follow or like.

As a child I was bullied for being clever and looking different, and as a result I ended up a loner observing all that was around me rather than be involved in things. I knew where I came from wasn’t a great neighborhood, but often as a child that is one thing you cannot control. You can’t control where you live, but you can make the best out of the situation, and you can choose who you wish to speak to and who to avoid. I say that, because I did, although for many I know that may not be possible. If someone I didn’t like visited I would hide and be shy, to avoid having to interact. Now, I just block them on social media or ignore their emails.

When people meet me, they are surprised at my background because I’m not typical of my peers or the natives in my area, nor am I similar to my parents. That’s because I decided for myself what my beliefs were going to be, based on moral principles, and logical and realistic facts. I was born in a small mining village where most people lived in council houses, supported Labour (and hated Thatcher), and thought if you didn’t speak with a local accent you were a snob. Yes, it’s a small minded place, and I always knew that and couldn’t wait to leave, but even the locals will admit that the area is rundown with few prospects. Throughout my childhood I battled against my direct environment, often arguing with those in authority because I saw them as small minded. I did win on several occasions, because my argument had basis and was logical. I nearly got suspended from college, but all could see I had a valid case and argument and I got my way and hopefully paved the way for others.

While our beliefs can adapt or change according to our personal experiences and influences, do they differ greatly from what foundations were created as a child? I find that social media has more of a brainwashing effect on people, and the media too depending on which paper you choose to read. Finding neutral and unbiased reports, and opinions, is much harder which is why I like philosophy, because it is supposed to look at all the options and then let the reader decide. Naturally, a philosopher can highlight what appears to be logical or rational depending on which philosophical approach they are taking.

What defines me is my moral compass and that is the bedrock of my belief system. I know right from wrong, even though I may have made errors in the past—that is how I know what is wrong for me at least. I am influenced by very little, but then again I don’t get impressed easily, even at my own achievements. Are you thinking for yourself, and can you explain why you have your beliefs or standards? If not then maybe think to yourself why and how did those perceptions come into being. Are you an individual or a byproduct of what you see and hear?